Strictly speaking there's always been a code of conduct conflict for the kernel it's just that nobody really gave a **** about it. That being said, I'm not sure what other approach there could be that might actually work. I've never contributed to the kernel; it's currently way outside my wheelhouse as a developer. I don't usually follow the LKML, and even I know this is something that's been talked about for years.

Kudos to Linus for stepping up, accepting responsibility and dealing with it.

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.

You're missing the point. The open source software movement is based almost entirely on meritocracy--the good projects rise to the top and volunteer contributors are valued for technical skill and dedication, something missing from the Dilbertian corporate climate that drove many of them to become FOSS contributors in the first place. The original, uncensored Contributor Covenant makes it about two sentences into the preamble before devolving into a bizarre rant about how meritocracy sucks and must be forcibly overthrown because it makes less competent developers feel insecure. It reads like an Onion parody of millennial snowflake software developers, really. Perhaps the kernel team's leadership only wants to adapt the don't-be-an-ass part, but if they go whole hog on the political BS then it won't be long before the hardcore introverts that keep the trains running migrate to other projects where their contributions are still valued and management is willing to leave them alone and get some work done. Hello, submarine vulnerability swarm, nice to meet you again!

You're missing the point. The open source software movement is based almost entirely on meritocracy--the good projects rise to the top and volunteer contributors are valued for technical skill and dedication, something missing from the Dilbertian corporate climate that drove many of them to become FOSS contributors in the first place. The original, uncensored Contributor Covenant makes it about two sentences into the preamble before devolving into a bizarre rant about how meritocracy sucks and must be forcibly overthrown because it makes less competent developers feel insecure. It reads like an Onion parody of millennial snowflake software developers, really. Perhaps the kernel team's leadership only wants to adapt the don't-be-an-ass part, but if they go whole hog on the political BS then it won't be long before the hardcore introverts that keep the trains running migrate to other projects where their contributions are still valued and management is willing to leave them alone and get some work done. Hello, submarine vulnerability swarm, nice to meet you again!

But hey, it's their choice.

While I agree that the original Contributor Covenant goes overboard, IMO the version adopted by the kernel folks strikes a pretty reasonable balance. They didn't write the original version; in the grand tradition of Open Source, they've taken it and created a derived work to suit their own perceived needs (stripping out the political ranting).

I don't see anything in the kernel maintainers' version that precludes maintaining a meritocracy. Paraphrased, it basically says "When rejecting a code submission, don't attack the author, and don't engage in harassing behavior."

Unacceptable: "Jane, you ignorant slut! This code is utter crap. A blindfolded kindergartener on meth could've done a better job."

Acceptable: "Your submission is being rejected because the implementation is very inefficient and has many potential unaddressed corner cases. Please correct these issues and resubmit your pull request."

That was kind of the whole point, wasn't it? A kinder, gentler kernel is nice and all, but I have a hard time believing this ever would have happened if it was all politics and nobody thought it would have any impact on the software. A meritocracy doesn't work without people, and there's already been people even just in this thread who have said they were reluctant to contribute for fear of getting a pile of ugly dropped on them because of some tiny thing.

Of course, it's a detail oriented business, and if you don't pay attention to that, then your code is going to suck. I don't think that's the point here.

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.

If they stick to what's written then I agree that it's much ado about nothing. The context is concerning, is all, particularly in light of younger developers' tendency to put way too much stock in various bad ideas coming out of the web development world.

The thing is that flaming people probably is the least of it, the proximate cause for this was the weirdness of the maintainers summit and Linus's family vacation.

From what Linus has said, it was basically like he thought they knew he wasn't supposed to be going, but then they just moved it to where he was vacationing....

Like...

uh...

Something is wrong?

My guess is that he is even more difficult to work with privately/in person. Either people have no idea what he wants and can't figure out how to ask him, or they are terrified of being abused for asking.

So they (that is, the kernel community) talked to him and said that this is ridiculous, and used the recent bizarre dysfunction as an example of why.

--

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the Code of Conduct was written by Satan---it's just a piece of paper. If you are worried about the "political BS", guys, the ones doing the BSing don't really need it, they can kick people out just as easily without it.

If they stick to what's written then I agree that it's much ado about nothing. The context is concerning, is all, particularly in light of younger developers' tendency to put way too much stock in various bad ideas coming out of the web development world.

TBH I don't see many web developers making the leap to kernel hacking, so this is likely an irrelevant concern.

But yeah, I hear you on the tendency of a lot of newer/younger developers to latch on to bad ideas, sometimes with religious fervor. If it's not "everything must be coded in <x>" (substitute "Java", "Python", "Ruby", etc.) for <x>, it's "we have to use this obscure new tool/library/framework/API in our project".